RantRantRant...

[agilebrit]

They removed her feeding tube today. I'm finding it very interesting that the feminists aren't chiming in on this. Where are they? Here we have a (so-called) husband, treating his wife like property, very determined that she is going to die. He's denied her permission to go outside her room since 2000, denied her physical therapy that would possibly make the feeding tube in question superfluous, and disallowed visits from therapy animals. He's ordered her caregivers not to brush her teeth since 1995. He's not allowed her to have any physical therapy since 1992. He ordered that she get no treatment for life-threatening infections in 1993 and 1995. It's entirely possible that he abused her in the past. His current actions smack of abuse. But the feminists are silent. I'll give credit where it's due if anyone can point me anywhere where they've risen up in protest, but I haven't seen it.

I'm finding the language used in this case by the mainstream press abhorrent. "Allow her to die." "Force her to live." Um, no. Michael Schiavo wants to force her to die. Her parents want to allow her to live. If Terri was a dog or a newborn infant, and someone wanted to starve her to death, that person would rightly be vilified on all sides as a sadistic monster. But since she can't speak for herself, somehow it's okay to kill her--because she's an inconvenience to her husband. Never mind that her parents would gladly assume all responsibility for her care.

The argument goes that he's her husband, the bond between husband and wife is sacred, he would know what's best for her because he was closest to her. But hasn't Michael himself severed those "sacred" matrimonial bonds by living with and fathering children with another woman while still married to Terri? There's an article at MSNBC that makes the laughable contention that her husband has "stuck by her" for fifteen years, and thus should be allowed to make the decision about her feeding tube. Yeah, if having babies with another woman whom you're planning to marry as soon as Terri kicks it is "sticking by her," that has to be the most egregious misuse of language I've ever read. Michael's all upset over being called an adulterer...well, what would you call it, Michael?

You know, I would understand if he just walked away saying "I can't take this anymore. I'm going to go on with my life and build another one with this other woman whom I've met and fallen in love with." I would not fault him for that; some people cannot take the stress of what he's been going through for the last fifteen years or so. What I fault him for is his absolute determination to kill her while he's at it. The feeding tube is now gone. Is he going to allow them to try to feed her without it? No. Why not? What is he afraid of? Might she say something, if she recovers somewhat, that would put him in a less-than-flattering light? Terri's parents think he may have tried to strangle her--which would explain the oxygen deprivation to her brain when she had a "heart attack" at the age of 26. Yeah, I've heard about "bulemia" and "potassium deprivation." Color me cynical, but I'm just a wee bit suspicious, because of his actions subsequent to her "heart attack."

So, yeah. I'm very distressed over this. I'm suspicious of her husband's motives, and I'm appalled at a judge who appears to have thumbed his nose at the US Congress and seems to have the attitude that she's better off dead no matter what her religious faith might have indicated. Let us please remember that Terri is Catholic and the Pope has said that feeding tubes are a "moral obligation." So this judge and her husband are forcing her to violate the dictates of her Church, in addition to forcing her to die. This isn't a "right to die" case. It's a "right to live" case.

Comments

[illmantrim.livejournal.com]

Most of this I wont argue with you because I agree that the husband is a sleezebag, but having done a little research ion the internet and watched countless hours of news(no job guy here, I got obssessed with the story), she is in, and this has been scientifically verified, a repeating vegetative state. This means all higher brain functions are gone. her body still responds to stimuli but it has nothing to do with her brain, the signals are body reaction, not brain reaction.

Now it is always possible this could reverse, but no one, not ever, has recovered from this state, and most have died even on machines sustaining them unless the machines did everything for them, and even then they never got better... That's all i wanted to say. Again I agree the ass is a bastard, but I think she is truly not ever coming back.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Well...her family has hope that she is. It may be false hope, but they have it and I'm not someone who'll deny them that. If she was on a respirator, that would be one thing, but a feeding tube is not "heroic measures" by any stretch of the imagination.

That being said, Michael's determination to have her killed sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me. To borrow a quote, I solemnly swear he is up to no good...

[whirligigged.livejournal.com]

I think it's horrible that she has to starve to death, and that her husband was so insistent on having her die. Why couldn't he just divorce her? But I think if I were in her position, I would rather die than to get a little better but be unable to return to what life was like before. She wouldn't ever be the same person again. I wouldn't be able to deal.

Simple answers were so much easier to come by in kindergarten.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've left instructions with my family. Dude, they starve me to death, and I'm going to come back and haunt their asses. It's one thing to shut off a respirator. It's quite another to suffer a slow agonizing death over a period of days or weeks.

Will not happen BUT....

[darkladyz.livejournal.com]

Will not happen BUT...

I have an evil mind.

The police are aware of the 'stragulation' theiry. They have not acted on the complaint - but neither have they dismissed it. Thus the charge reminds in limbo.

Murder has no statute of limitation. Thus no requirement that it be charged 'promptly'. (Remember that the police waited 4 years to charge RObert Blake. Others have taken longer.)

It would be... amusing in a sick way... if she was to die and THEN the police arrived - to arrest her husband for murder one. Not from her death by starvation - from her death by STRANGULATION.

(And yes - the time and cirsumstances would make no legal difference. If it comes from a crime - it's a crime. 'You must take your victim as you find him.)

Not saying this is real. Or possible in the real world. Just... interesting thought.